We cut down the trees that can handle the amount of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere, and replace them with trees that cannot. Even when companies plant two trees for every one they cut down, it is still 20 percent shortfall.

Sunday January 13, 2013, 4:19 am
What if aliens had come to Earth and were 80 or 90% through with murdering all the adults ? Even if they now started cloning 2 or even 5 'babies' for every one they killed -- would ANYone even for a microsecond consider this to be good?
--
Ancient Forests - 6000 B.C :: Now [more precisely: a few years ago] ... but this doesn't tell even half the story ...

"" Imagine a time-lapse film of Earth taken from space. Play back the last 10,000 years, at 1 millennium/minute. For more than 7 minutes this looks like a still photograph.
At 7.5 minutes, lands around Athens lose their forests, little else changes.
...
In the last three seconds (i.e. after 1950) the change accelerates explosively.
...
Forests disappear so suddenly from so many places, that it looks like a plague of locusts descended on the planet. ""
-- Invaders from their Own Planet (~800 kB jpg)

Sunday January 13, 2013, 5:13 am
Noted, thanks. Perhaps 3 trees should be planted for every tree that is cut down. But what about the illegal logging that goes on - are those trees replaced with even one new tree?

Sunday January 13, 2013, 10:15 pm
"Why cut down the forests that have been growing for thousands of years, when we could easily cut down the plantation trees, since they do not provide that much CO2 removal in the first place?" An excellent question.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 4:09 am
I wouldn't ever have the heart to cut down any tree, whether forest or plantation. Forest trees are so majestic and beautiful, we should only cut down those which are diseased and for everyday supplies use plantation trees, but recycle whenever possible.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 5:11 am
It is better than nothing but we often fall for this baloney. That said, I encourage the planting of native trees and as many as possible. It will take many years to replce those cut down. the same is through for so called wetland mitigation where a functional wetland is replaced by nothing more than a swimming pool and people feel good!

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 7:06 am
Makes for interesting reading. It would be good if we could drastically diminish the number of trees that are felled; however, substitutes might not be so easily available. I think that the best we could hope for would be to make the maximum possible use of whatever is cut down and to start harping that trees too are a scarce resource irrespective of the trees being planted.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 7:57 am
It's never as good to cut down existing trees with the excuse of 'plant 2 for every 1' thing. A mature forest of any kind that has never been 'managed' by humans has all sorts of natural biodiversity in it, usually many different types of trees, plants, homes for birds and wildlife in it that have accrued naturally over at least 80 yrs (for short lifespan trees) and much much longer for most other tree species such as 150-350 yrs.
Ever walk through a managed forest or 'tree plantation'? They are monocultures, meaning mostly the same type of trees, which is unnatural usually for that area, which causes unnatural systems of plants and fewer plants and habitat for birds and animals. Besides, a 'managed forest' or 'tree plantation' has the basis for it of being harvested again in the future by humans.
Logging industries have always tried to mimic nature and failed, except in very small areas or small scale operations. Logging for the most part involves large scale industrial deforestation.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 8:08 am
You could think of any forest with defined borders as really existing and behaving as a single entity. Everything in it, trees, plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, etc. could be viewed as a single living organism.
What makes it healthy is how biodiverse it is, meaning it has all sorts of different things within it. This allows it to fight off disease, insect pests, inbreeding, foreign species, etc.
When humans decrease or alter that biodiversity look out, it's ability to fight these things off lessens and weakens, which is why pesticides then have to be used, all sorts of other unnatural solutions have to be tried.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 12:58 pm
Of coarse mature tree take in more carbon. Look at the size of them compared to the seedlings that replace them. These little trees will grow and as they do, They'll use more and more carbon. what needs to be done is replace some of the tree usage like paper to Cannabis.

Tuesday January 15, 2013, 1:04 pm
Yes, we must protect the remaining old growth forests. Yes, I agree with the commentator who suggested hemp as a fast-growing alternative to planting trees to help absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere. We also need to reduce consumption of all resources, and we desperately need to reduce our global population. Nonetheless, at the end of the day, when I cash in my points for rewards, I almost always choose to redeem them to plant trees.

Let us pause for the taking of inventory
And measure the debt we owe the tree!
For the searching root that knits the soil,
The comforting shade for those who toil,
The air we breathe, natureís greatest gift,
And the leaf that heralds each seasonís shift.
Forget not the fruit that feeds man and beast,
Nor the branch that burns to prepare the feast.
That sturdy frame that builds the home
And the paper on which you read this poem.
The Tree gives all and asks no prize,
Even making the axe that ends its life.